In Maryland there is no legal open carry. Good luck getting a conceal carry permit. You must show the government you have "good and proper reason". The constitution itself is not considered a good enough reason.

In Maryland there is no legal open carry. Good luck getting a conceal carry permit. You must show the government you have "good and proper reason". The constitution itself is not considered a good enough reason.

NC is an open carry state. You must have a CCW to carry concealed.

Different states have Laws all over the board. Seems to have little correlation to gun crime rates.

Different states have Laws all over the board. Seems to have little correlation to gun crime rates.[/quote]

Yep, which is why it is important to know before you go.

I have a non-residential permit that isn't valid in my state but is in others. If I think I might carry even once (concealed) I ask a state police officer, get his card and make notes. That said, I almost never "carry" but I almost always "transport".

I figured gun control was never going to happen once it became apparent that 27 dead kids wasn't enough to move the public needle. It's a reflection of our societal collective narcissism that we still elevate the rights of the individual to protect oneself with a gun over the collective right to feel safe in a public space, or the collective right of children to be safe while being educated. That ship has sailed.

So my new theory is that liberals need to become gun nuts in order for gun control to become a reality. I would bet cash money that if liberals started hoarding guns en masse, or showing up to these town halls with assault rifles, then attitudes might change.

Who doesn't feel safe in public spaces? People who don't know that gun crimes and gun deaths have been dropping for decades? If people are so unsafe in public, that would be a wonderful arguement for more people to carry guns, not fewer. More kids are mowed down in Chicagos south side every year than died in Sandy Hook. When that isn't being addressed, it makes little sense to worry about a one-off event that no proposed gun law would have prevented.

I figured gun control was never going to happen once it became apparent that 27 dead kids wasn't enough to move the public needle. It's a reflection of our societal collective narcissism that we still elevate the rights of the individual to protect oneself with a gun over the collective right to feel safe in a public space, or the collective right of children to be safe while being educated. That ship has sailed.

So my new theory is that liberals need to become gun nuts in order for gun control to become a reality. I would bet cash money that if liberals started hoarding guns en masse, or showing up to these town halls with assault rifles, then attitudes might change.

One has a greater chance of getting struck by lighting than by getting killed in a mass shooter event. The odds of being a victim of violent crime are much, much greater than that. A shooting at a school sucks big time but what sort of gun control would have prevented it? I do know a trained, armed teacher is much more effective at stopping a shooter than a building full of sitting ducks.

Then why did all of the schools in my town feel like they had to rip down their entrances and put up new glass fronts and security doors so that the faculty could see if a shooter was approaching the building? Why did my kids have to start having "code blue" active shooter drills? I know these mass shooting incidents are rare, but like all rare yet "shocking" events, they have an effect on people and change behavior at a societal level. You can tell people all you want to not feel afraid, but it doesn't change how we are wired. This is why we took shoes off at airports until very recently although no one actually died. Knowing that anyone, anywhere could have a gun produces a low level of anxiety. It forces cops to be more heavily armed. It makes people behave differently. It makes people LESS safe in aggregate, although an individual gun owner might feel more safe (although from talking to experienced and trained gun owners, they probably aren't actually and overestimate their abilities in a crisis situation).

I know the suicide statistics quite well. One of my high school friends was a gun nut and ended up killing himself with a gun late last year. He had diagnosed mental health issues and still had no trouble acquiring an arsenal. In fact, he had journals indicating he was planning on taking more people out with him, but I think he lost his nerve in the end.

In any case, I am past pushing for gun control, because it's pointless. I am even encouraging all the liberals I know to buy multiple guns.

Then why did all of the schools in my town feel like they had to rip down their entrances and put up new glass fronts and security doors so that the faculty could see if a shooter was approaching the building? Why did my kids have to start having "code blue" active shooter drills?

Because humans are naturally irrational creatures and prioritize trying to prevent extremely unlikely events rather than things that are actually likely to kill people. If we wanted to get the greatest return on our time and effort in the form of preventing (actually delaying) deaths, we would have more defensive driving courses, not text and drive, eat healthy foods, exercise regularly, etc.

Then why did all of the schools in my town feel like they had to rip down their entrances and put up new glass fronts and security doors so that the faculty could see if a shooter was approaching the building? Why did my kids have to start having "code blue" active shooter drills?

Because humans are naturally irrational creatures and prioritize trying to prevent extremely unlikely events rather than things that are actually likely to kill people. If we wanted to get the greatest return on our time and effort in the form of preventing (actually delaying) deaths, we would have more defensive driving courses, not text and drive, eat healthy foods, exercise regularly, etc.

Then why did all of the schools in my town feel like they had to rip down their entrances and put up new glass fronts and security doors so that the faculty could see if a shooter was approaching the building? Why did my kids have to start having "code blue" active shooter drills?

Because humans are naturally irrational creatures and prioritize trying to prevent extremely unlikely events rather than things that are actually likely to kill people. If we wanted to get the greatest return on our time and effort in the form of preventing (actually delaying) deaths, we would have more defensive driving courses, not text and drive, eat healthy foods, exercise regularly, etc.

Exactly.

I am glad you have stopped pushing for gun control golden1. I hope anyone you convince to buy guns enjoys them safely. Shooting sports are quite fun.

Did you actually read what I wrote after that? No, because it doesn't fit into your narrative of "I like guns so I will rationalize keeping them in any way I can."

My biggest gripe about the whole thing is that you and other pro-gun people immediately jump to "Don't take my guns over a statistically unlikely event!" not "OMFG, 27 kids died to gun violence! I really want to keep my guns but that is terrible. What can we do as gun owners to add our input into why this happened and how to prevent this from happening?" Instead, we heard from the NRA "It's your fault for not letting us have guns in schools." Which shows you aren't interested in solving the problem, just making yourselves feel better. You laugh at us non-gun people as dumb ignorant emotional idiots, and therefore widen the polarization instead of, oh I don't know, trying to educate people and solve the problem.

I want people to be able to safely own guns. I also want to send my kids to school safely, and not let my friends who have suicidal depression be able to acquire multiple weapons. I want people who live in unsafe areas to be able to defend themselves, I want people to own guns to protect against a tyrannical government, and I want people to be able to use guns simply for recreation if that floats your boat. I don't think that all of this is necessarily irreconcilable.

Emotional reactions will often be dismissed as unhelpful for solving problems. This is why many gun owners don't appeal to emotions- they appeal to logic and reason with their arguments. An armed teacher is probably just as likely to stop a mass shooting as banning scary black rifles because they make us feel sad; both have a very low chance of success, with some downsides.

Your last paragraph is helpful; few people would disagree with the goals you listed. What policies would you propose to meet them?

Did you actually read what I wrote after that? No, because it doesn't fit into your narrative of "I like guns so I will rationalize keeping them in any way I can."

My biggest gripe about the whole thing is that you and other pro-gun people immediately jump to "Don't take my guns over a statistically unlikely event!" not "OMFG, 27 kids died to gun violence! I really want to keep my guns but that is terrible. What can we do as gun owners to add our input into why this happened and how to prevent this from happening?" Instead, we heard from the NRA "It's your fault for not letting us have guns in schools." Which shows you aren't interested in solving the problem, just making yourselves feel better. You laugh at us non-gun people as dumb ignorant emotional idiots, and therefore widen the polarization instead of, oh I don't know, trying to educate people and solve the problem.

I want people to be able to safely own guns. I also want to send my kids to school safely, and not let my friends who have suicidal depression be able to acquire multiple weapons. I want people who live in unsafe areas to be able to defend themselves, I want people to own guns to protect against a tyrannical government, and I want people to be able to use guns simply for recreation if that floats your boat. I don't think that all of this is necessarily irreconcilable.

This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

Emotional reactions will often be dismissed as unhelpful for solving problems. This is why many gun owners don't appeal to emotions- they appeal to logic and reason with their arguments

I find that most people come to their conclusions first through emotion and then reason their way to that conclusion later. I honestly think most gun owners just like guns. They see one and it makes them feel happy for some reason. Maybe their dad took them shooting when they grew up, IDK. I see a gun IRL and my stomach turns. I viscerally hate them because to me they represent mostly death. I understand intellectually the appeal for people. I understand the need for them, but I will never love them in the same way gun enthusiasts would. (I will cop to enjoying Fallout 4. I learned more about guns through crafting them in that game than I ever knew before.) Maybe I'll change my tune when Trump ushers in the zombie apocalypse.

This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I think they are paranoid that us non-gun owners are trying to repeal the second amendment, which is still an extreme minority position, so they use the slippery slope arguement instead of taking it at face value when people say "We don't want to repeal the second amendment."

What can we do as gun owners to add our input into why this happened and how to prevent this from happening?" Instead, we heard from the NRA "It's your fault for not letting us have guns in schools." Which shows you aren't interested in solving the problem, just making yourselves feel better.

I haven't yet heard any recommendations on laws that would have prevented Sandy Hook from happening. I do know that if it were my child inside that school, I would much rather have an armed, trained teacher inside than not.

This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I'm a gun owner. And I have a CCW permit. But fuck the NRA.

Agreed. MM, don't pretend a very large minority, if not the majority of pro-gun activists use extremely emotion-based arguments. "Muh freedom!" and so forth. Also, what logically divined evidence proves that armed teachers will meaningfully reduce in-school gun violence? To me, that claim sounds more fear-based than logic based, but perhaps I missed a study?

That said, as I mentioned in my last post, there are plenty of logic-based reasons to oppose gun control and none of them have to do with the idea that better gun access will allegedly prevent violent assaults.

This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I'm a gun owner. And I have a CCW permit. But fuck the NRA.

Agreed. MM, don't pretend a very large minority, if not the majority of pro-gun activists use extremely emotion-based arguments. "Muh freedom!" and so forth. Also, what logically divined evidence proves that armed teachers will meaningfully reduce in-school gun violence? To me, that claim sounds more fear-based than logic based, but perhaps I missed a study?

That said, as I mentioned in my last post, there are plenty of logic-based reasons to oppose gun control and none of them have to do with the idea that better gun access will allegedly prevent violent assaults.

Also, fuck the NRA.

I was very clear on my belief on the effectiveness of armed teachers. You seem unclear, so you may wish to re-read my post.

This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I think they are paranoid that us non-gun owners are trying to repeal the second amendment, which is still an extreme minority position, so they use the slippery slope arguement instead of taking it at face value when people say "We don't want to repeal the second amendment."

Ok, so for the third time; would you care to share policies that you think would be effective?

This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I'm a gun owner. And I have a CCW permit. But fuck the NRA.

Agreed. MM, don't pretend a very large minority, if not the majority of pro-gun activists use extremely emotion-based arguments. "Muh freedom!" and so forth. Also, what logically divined evidence proves that armed teachers will meaningfully reduce in-school gun violence? To me, that claim sounds more fear-based than logic based, but perhaps I missed a study?

That said, as I mentioned in my last post, there are plenty of logic-based reasons to oppose gun control and none of them have to do with the idea that better gun access will allegedly prevent violent assaults.

Also, fuck the NRA.

I was very clear on my belief on the effectiveness of armed teachers. You seem unclear, so you may wish to re-read my post.

Belief =/= logic, is all I''m saying. Your reasons were clear enough and plausible, but still more based in emotion than logic as far as I recall. I shall try to go back and reread them later to see if I'm misremembering.

Either way the broader point remains that it's silly to imply that many/most gun owners only use only logic and reason to support their beliefs. Just because someone with a gun stopped a crime one time, or five times, or a hundred times, it is not a logical argument to claim that greater gun access = less crime. We've seen it repeatedly throughout this thread. No one has said (or can say, for that matter) "This extensive peer review study shows that school shootings happen less often and with fewer deaths in areas where most teachers carry." Instead they say "I know I would feel better sending my child to a school where the teachers were well trained and armed." That is emotion-based reasoning.

ETA - I don't mean to say the above is bad reasoning, just that you can't really claim to be more logical/objective than many pro gun control advocates. We have already established that there is relatively little reliable research out there to show how the statistics work out, so all anyone has is their biased intuition, backed up with anecdotal evidence. To be clear I am only talking about the question of whether gun access reduces violent crime.

Ok, so for the third time; would you care to share policies that you think would be effective?

Hmmm, well for starters, I think that people need to build a proper comfort level with a gun, and at the same time respect it as the tool that it is. I think that it has become the symbol of death for people like me and a symbol of patriotism for pro-gun people, and really neither is appropriate. I would like to see the NRA (or some other organization) provide outreach

Switzerland is an interesting country. Everyone has a gun in Switzerland but there is very low gun violence. Maybe we can channel some of those ideas to the US. Also, let's study different gun laws in different states and try to find some common denominators to gun safety. Maybe there is nothing there, but let's look at the data and at least try things. The problem is, every attempt to try an idea is met with extreme resistance because it is assumed that the end game is to repeal the second amendment.

The NRA already does this kind of outreach. It is called the Eddie Eagle program. You may wish to read up on it. I would like to see this training as part of standard curriculum in every school, and see almost no reason against it.

Violent crime is much more correlated with poverty than gun laws. You have states with very lax gun laws(ME,NH,VT) that have very low murder rates and ones with high murder rates(MS,MO,LA). You also have states with strict gun laws with low murder rates(MA,RI,HI) and states with high murder rates(DE,MD,IL)

Belief =/= logic, is all I''m saying. Your reasons were clear enough and plausible, but still more based in emotion than logic as far as I recall. I shall try to go back and reread them later to see if I'm misremembering.

Either way the broader point remains that it's silly to imply that many/most gun owners only use only logic and reason to support their beliefs. Just because someone with a gun stopped a crime one time, or five times, or a hundred times, it is not a logical argument to claim that greater gun access = less crime. We've seen it repeatedly throughout this thread. No one has (or can) say "This extensive peer review study shows that school shootings happen less and with fewer deaths in areas where most teachers carry." Instead they say "I know I would feel better sending my child to a school where the teachers were well trained and armed." That is emotion-based reasoning.

No. Belief does not equal logic. But the argument that an armed teacher could stop a shooter is more reasoned and less emotional than "I feel scurred around big mean guns." I specifically said that it wasn't likely to have an effect on shooting rates, only that it is a reasoned argument as opposed to an emotional one.

I have not seen as many arguements of " I would feel better with more guns in my school." I see plenty of "Guns could stop school shootings" arguments. The status of this being completely factul or not does not detract from this being a reasoned arguement and not an emotional one. On the other hand i see mostly emotional arguements for gun control- golden1 listed several, with zero reason based arguements. In fact, their whole point was that gun proponents are not emotional enough, which I think is silly and unhelpful, whether it is true or not.

Violent crime is much more correlated with poverty than gun laws. You have states with very lax gun laws(ME,NH,VT) that have very low murder rates and ones with high murder rates(MS,MO,LA). You also have states with strict gun laws with low murder rates(MA,RI,HI) and states with high murder rates(DE,MD,IL)

Correct. And thus the most logical conclusion is that claiming guns clearly do/do not increase personal safety is based more in emotion than logic. Perhaps well-reasoned emotion, but still.

This is why I prefer to focus more broadly on questions like "how do we reduce gun deaths?", which have many answers besides "stricter gun control!" or "arm every teacher!"

No. Belief does not equal logic. But the argument that an armed teacher could stop a shooter is more reasoned and less emotional than "I feel scurred around big mean guns." I specifically said that it wasn't likely to have an effect on shooting rates, only that it is a reasoned argument as opposed to an emotional one.

I have not seen as many arguements of " I would feel better with more guns in my school." I see plenty of "Guns could stop school shootings" arguments. The status of this being completely factul or not does not detract from this being a reasoned arguement and not an emotional one. On the other hand i see mostly emotional arguements for gun control- golden1 listed several, with zero reason based arguements. In fact, their whole point was that gun proponents are not emotional enough, which I think is silly and unhelpful, whether it is true or not.

Sure, "guns could stop school shootings" is completely factual the same way that "metal detectors could stop school shootings," or "anti-bullying campaigns can stop school shootings," or "[insert theory here]." All of them are plausibly true and all of them have plausible scenarios in which they would fail to stop a shooting. None of them are clearly the most reasoned/logical approach because there is not enough data to back any of them up that definitively.

I don't disagree that anti-gun folks tend to make emotional appeals and are generally harsher with them. My point is that pro-gun folks also make emotional appeals, they are just different. golden1 and others are more along the lines of "how can you stand for children to be murdered and do nothing?" Pro gun folks are along the lines of either "guns = FREEDOM!" which is obviously emotion based, or more subtly, "I believe I am safer and can make others safer when I have a gun," which sounds reasonable, but is still based within the same emotion used by the anti-gun folks, fear.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the above. Fear for the safety of you, your family, and society is a great reason to seek effective solutions. But it's a bit condescending for you to imply that you have the logical high ground in the debate, so to speak, just as it is obnoxious (and I will say, objectively more mean-spirited) for others to come in and accuse you of being indifferent to murdered children.

No. Belief does not equal logic. But the argument that an armed teacher could stop a shooter is more reasoned and less emotional than "I feel scurred around big mean guns." I specifically said that it wasn't likely to have an effect on shooting rates, only that it is a reasoned argument as opposed to an emotional one.

I have not seen as many arguements of " I would feel better with more guns in my school." I see plenty of "Guns could stop school shootings" arguments. The status of this being completely factul or not does not detract from this being a reasoned arguement and not an emotional one. On the other hand i see mostly emotional arguements for gun control- golden1 listed several, with zero reason based arguements. In fact, their whole point was that gun proponents are not emotional enough, which I think is silly and unhelpful, whether it is true or not.

Sure, "guns could stop school shootings" is completely factual the same way that "metal detectors could stop school shootings," or "anti-bullying campaigns can stop school shootings," or "[insert theory here]." All of them are plausibly true and all of them have plausible scenarios in which they would fail to stop a shooting. None of them are clearly the most reasoned/logical approach because there is not enough data to back any of them up that definitively.

I don't disagree that anti-gun folks tend to make emotional appeals and are generally harsher with them. My point is that pro-gun folks also make emotional appeals, they are just different. golden1 and others are more along the lines of "how can you stand for children to be murdered and do nothing?" Pro gun folks are along the lines of either "guns = FREEDOM!" which is obviously emotion based, or more subtly, "I believe I am safer and can make others safer when I have a gun," which sounds reasonable, but is still based within the same emotion used by the anti-gun folks, fear.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the above. Fear for the safety of you, your family, and society is a great reason to seek effective solutions. But it's a bit condescending for you to imply that you have the logical high ground in the debate, so to speak, just as it is obnoxious (and I will say, objectively more mean-spirited) for others to come in and accuse you of being indifferent to murdered children.

Shooting and killing someone that is trying to kill Innocent people stops them that's a fact. Now there are many factors that determine if a person can accomplish that. Metal detectors, anti-bullying campaigns etc. may deter but will not stop someone determined to do harm to others. Unfortunately there are things that can only be solved by violence. Mass shootings not ending until the shooter(s) meeting resistance is what many of them have in common. Generally the sooner they are met with resistance the less people they are able to kill or injure.

Shooting and killing someone that is trying to kill Innocent people stops them that's a fact. Now there are many factors that determine if a person can accomplish that. Metal detectors, anti-bullying campaigns etc. may deter but will not stop someone determined to do harm to others. Unfortunately there are things that can only be solved by violence. Mass shootings not ending until the shooter(s) meeting resistance is what many of them have in common. Generally the sooner they are met with resistance the less people they are able to kill or injure.

No, a proposed scenario is not a fact. There is no difference between what you said is a "fact" and me saying: An anti-bullying campaign can lead to a disturbed child getting the emotional support he needs before he decides to shoot up a school, thus preventing the action just as effectively as if he was taken out by an armed teacher. More so, because he gets to live too and the entire student body is better equipped to handle conflict appropriately for the rest of their lives, to the benefit of society as a whole.

Or here's another "fact" for you. A disturbed student who did not originally intend to plan a mass shooting reaches a breaking point (say due to bullying) while within reach of an armed teacher who, surprised by the sudden turn, finds the student in control of their weapon, thus setting off a school shooting that wouldn't have happened at all.

Now again, I am not actually trying to argue the above is particularly likely (school shootings in general are not particularly likely), or against the idea that guns can prevent violence. I only aim to point out that what you guys are calling "facts" are also emotion-based arguments.

You're not doing a very good job of arguing both sides only argue from emotion. In fact, you've pointed out quite well that one side is looking at ways to actually accomplish a goal, and the other side is worried about feeling like something has changed.

At no point have I argued that these proposed policies are effective, only that they are argued from a base of reason. Reasonable debates will allow policies to be disscused constructivley. Arguing emotionally that guns in school would not be good because they would frighten a parent, for example, does not help the situation or assist in solving the problem of gun deaths.

What happens when an armed teacher accidentally shoots a student or another teacher? I could go so far as to accept a trained armed guard in a school, but I don't want teachers to be required to carry. If we HAVE to have guns in schools, then at least make sure they are in the hands of properly trained people.

As far as my reasons being "purely emotional", I believe yours are emotional as well. You believe that trained teachers would be superior to no guns in schools at all, but there are no statistics to back that up.

Quote

Shooting and killing someone that is trying to kill Innocent people stops them that's a fact. Now there are many factors that determine if a person can accomplish that. Metal detectors, anti-bullying campaigns etc. may deter but will not stop someone determined to do harm to others. Unfortunately there are things that can only be solved by violence. Mass shootings not ending until the shooter(s) meeting resistance is what many of them have in common. Generally the sooner they are met with resistance the less people they are able to kill or injure.

It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all. And hardly any one dies. Sure you will find the occasional knife attack, but people are injured, not dead.

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Thinking that violence is necessary leads you to violence. Thinking that violence is unacceptable leads you away from it. We have seen societies where there is little to no gun violence. It can happen. It has happened. THAT is a fact. You have chosen violence over an alternative that you know exists. You need to own that.

You're not doing a very good job of arguing both sides only argue from emotion. In fact, you've pointed out quite well that one side is looking at ways to actually accomplish a goal, and the other side is worried about feeling like something has changed.

At no point have I argued that these proposed policies are effective, only that they are argued from a base of reason. Reasonable debates will allow policies to be disscused constructivley. Arguing emotionally that guns in school would not be good because they would frighten a parent, for example, does not help the situation or assist in solving the problem of gun deaths.

What are you talking about? I've pointed out that there are reasonable solutions to this problem that do not involve arming teachers and reasonable inferences regarding why arming teachers could potentially have negative side effects. You are trying to claim that the anti-gun crowd only has one argument: "guns are scary!" which is demonstrably not the case.

Meanwhile, all you are essentially arguing is "guns can theoretically stop scary things from happening," which I'll admit is more constructive than the above strawman, but you've ignored the other reasonable proposals from the anti-gun side. All I'm saying is both sides are arguing from emotion (again, fear). Doesn't mean both don't have good points to be made.

It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all. And hardly any one dies. Sure you will find the occasional knife attack, but people are injured, not dead.

So much for the "no one is saying we should ban all guns." Arguement...

See, you think you aren't emotional, but you are. I NEVER said I wanted to ban all guns. I was saying that that is a predictable way to virtually eliminate mass shootings. Please stop pretending your arguments aren't emotionally based. You immediately read what you wanted to think I was saying into my statement, even when I stated above that I was NOT for repealing the second amendment. Cast the beam out of your own eye, gun lover.

You're not doing a very good job of arguing both sides only argue from emotion. In fact, you've pointed out quite well that one side is looking at ways to actually accomplish a goal, and the other side is worried about feeling like something has changed.

At no point have I argued that these proposed policies are effective, only that they are argued from a base of reason. Reasonable debates will allow policies to be disscused constructivley. Arguing emotionally that guns in school would not be good because they would frighten a parent, for example, does not help the situation or assist in solving the problem of gun deaths.

What are you talking about? I've pointed out that there are reasonable solutions to this problem that do not involve arming teachers and reasonable inferences regarding why arming teachers could potentially have negative side effects. You are trying to claim that the anti-gun crowd only has one argument: "guns are scary!" which is demonstrably not the case.

Meanwhile, all you are essentially arguing is "guns can theoretically stop scary things from happening," which I'll admit is more constructive than the above strawman, but you've ignored the other reasonable proposals from the anti-gun side. All I'm saying is both sides are arguing from emotion (again, fear). Doesn't mean both don't have good points to be made.

I have never said guns can stop scary things from happening. I never said that one side used only emotion based arguements. I said one side uses them, and they are unhelpful in actually solving the problems. The guns in school was merely an example- of course there are reasons against having armed teachers running around blasting at defensless children in an emergency, but debate and discussion will decide if this is an acceptable policy, not calls that it should not happen because some people may be uncomfortable with their kids teachers having guns.

See, you think you aren't emotional, but you are. I NEVER said I wanted to ban all guns. I was saying that that is a predictable way to virtually eliminate mass shootings. Please stop pretending your arguments aren't emotionally based. You immediately read what you wanted to think I was saying into my statement, even when I stated above that I was NOT for repealing the second amendment. Cast the beam out of your own eye, gun lover.

I merely quoted what you typed. I did not apply emotional value to it, or remark on how it made me feel. I did not use emotionally loaded language such as "gun lover". That is on you.

If we agree that no one wants to ban guns, then bringing it up is not productive discussion. Discussing the NRA Eddie Eagle program, and how it could reduce gun deaths in the USA if brought into every school as standard curriculum would be one example of productive, positive discussion. Name calling is not helpful, in my opinion.

Gun lover isn't a name, it's a description of your emotional reasoning behind gun ownership. Also, I was bringing up gun banning in a totally different context, which if you weren't being so emotional, you would have been able to understand. And I also find you idea of putting guns in the hands of teachers to be inflammatory and not constructive. It is not something that would be accepted by most parents.

I have never said guns can stop scary things from happening. I never said that one side used only emotion based arguements. I said one side uses them, and they are unhelpful in actually solving the problems. The guns in school was merely an example- of course there are reasons against having armed teachers running around blasting at defensless children in an emergency, but debate and discussion will decide if this is an acceptable policy, not calls that it should not happen because some people may be uncomfortable with their kids teachers having guns.

OK, I agree with the parameters defined by this post. Although I still think it's clear that both sides are using emotion-based arguments (even if you feel that you personally are not), but that distinction is not super important either way and is probably a red herring to pursue much further.

Gun lover isn't a name, it's a description of your emotional reasoning behind gun ownership. Also, I was bringing up gun banning in a totally different context, which if you weren't being so emotional, you would have been able to understand. And I also find you idea of putting guns in the hands of teachers to be inflammatory and not constructive. It is not something that would be accepted by most parents.

Calm down.

Yes linking guns to patriotism is an emotional appeal. I have not engaged in this.

Putting guns in teachers hands was not my idea. I did not advocate for such a thing, suggest it as an option or bring it up originally, which if you had read my posts instead of getting so distressed at such an "inflammatory " thought, you may have realised this.

This is my point: it is hard to have productive discussion when one side presents a solution and the other side says "can't do it, it's inflammatory. " this is exactly the emotional arguments that bog down the discussion without producing compromise.

I have never said guns can stop scary things from happening. I never said that one side used only emotion based arguements. I said one side uses them, and they are unhelpful in actually solving the problems. The guns in school was merely an example- of course there are reasons against having armed teachers running around blasting at defensless children in an emergency, but debate and discussion will decide if this is an acceptable policy, not calls that it should not happen because some people may be uncomfortable with their kids teachers having guns.

OK, I agree with the parameters defined by this post. Although I still think it's clear that both sides are using emotion-based arguments (even if you feel that you personally are not), but that distinction is not super important either way and is probably a red herring to pursue much further.

Cool.

Sorry if I was unclear in my position originally. Helps to have someone ask questions if I don't make my argument concisely from the beginning.

Other potential practical ideas that come to mind with guns - let's give another shot at solving it technologically. Yes, I know earlier attempts at a "smart gun" were a disaster. But if I can open my phone almost instantly with my fingerprint, surely we can figure out something for a gun, right? I mean, I know it doesn't solve every problem, but it might slow the sale of illegal guns. The paranoid right will probably worry about registering fingerprints in a federal database, so make it like Apple is doing and have the gun companies hold on to that data themselves. I'll have to do some research into what could possibly be done to make guns safer.

I thought a lot about the "emotion" angle last night, and it occurs to me that you can't really separate emotion from these types of debates entirely, and you probably don't want to. I mean, most people who have had a gun related death in their friend or family circle tend to gravitate toward gun control. Many of these people become activists. Those who have been able to save family members or themselves from assault would naturally be anti-gun control. It just makes sense to integrate what you know into these debates. Most people really don't pick a side out of thin air, debate it analytically and come up with an answer. They start from a certain emotional place and then find rationales to back up their experience. When you are saying that people need to pull back and look at the facts, you are never going to get anywhere, because you invalidating peoples strong emotions about the experiences guns have in their lives. It matters.

What happens when an armed teacher accidentally shoots a student or another teacher? I could go so far as to accept a trained armed guard in a school, but I don't want teachers to be required to carry. If we HAVE to have guns in schools, then at least make sure they are in the hands of properly trained people.

As far as my reasons being "purely emotional", I believe yours are emotional as well. You believe that trained teachers would be superior to no guns in schools at all, but there are no statistics to back that up.

Quote

Shooting and killing someone that is trying to kill Innocent people stops them that's a fact. Now there are many factors that determine if a person can accomplish that. Metal detectors, anti-bullying campaigns etc. may deter but will not stop someone determined to do harm to others. Unfortunately there are things that can only be solved by violence. Mass shootings not ending until the shooter(s) meeting resistance is what many of them have in common. Generally the sooner they are met with resistance the less people they are able to kill or injure.

It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all. And hardly any one dies. Sure you will find the occasional knife attack, but people are injured, not dead.

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Thinking that violence is necessary leads you to violence. Thinking that violence is unacceptable leads you away from it. We have seen societies where there is little to no gun violence. It can happen. It has happened. THAT is a fact. You have chosen violence over an alternative that you know exists. You need to own that.

I never said I wanted teachers required to carry, I think people that can legally carry everywhere else should be able to do so at schools too. A teacher that carries outside of school should be able to carry at school if they want to.

Other potential practical ideas that come to mind with guns - let's give another shot at solving it technologically. Yes, I know earlier attempts at a "smart gun" were a disaster. But if I can open my phone almost instantly with my fingerprint, surely we can figure out something for a gun, right? I mean, I know it doesn't solve every problem, but it might slow the sale of illegal guns. The paranoid right will probably worry about registering fingerprints in a federal database, so make it like Apple is doing and have the gun companies hold on to that data themselves. I'll have to do some research into what could possibly be done to make guns safer.

I thought a lot about the "emotion" angle last night, and it occurs to me that you can't really separate emotion from these types of debates entirely, and you probably don't want to. I mean, most people who have had a gun related death in their friend or family circle tend to gravitate toward gun control. Many of these people become activists. Those who have been able to save family members or themselves from assault would naturally be anti-gun control. It just makes sense to integrate what you know into these debates. Most people really don't pick a side out of thin air, debate it analytically and come up with an answer. They start from a certain emotional place and then find rationales to back up their experience. When you are saying that people need to pull back and look at the facts, you are never going to get anywhere, because you invalidating peoples strong emotions about the experiences guns have in their lives. It matters.

Your fingerprint scanner on your phone doesn't work all the time in all conditions instantly. It should never be on an item that may be used in a life or death situation. I'm not against companies trying to develop the technology. I however very much against it be required by law.

Other potential practical ideas that come to mind with guns - let's give another shot at solving it technologically. Yes, I know earlier attempts at a "smart gun" were a disaster. But if I can open my phone almost instantly with my fingerprint, surely we can figure out something for a gun, right? I mean, I know it doesn't solve every problem, but it might slow the sale of illegal guns. The paranoid right will probably worry about registering fingerprints in a federal database, so make it like Apple is doing and have the gun companies hold on to that data themselves. I'll have to do some research into what could possibly be done to make guns safer.

I thought a lot about the "emotion" angle last night, and it occurs to me that you can't really separate emotion from these types of debates entirely, and you probably don't want to. I mean, most people who have had a gun related death in their friend or family circle tend to gravitate toward gun control. Many of these people become activists. Those who have been able to save family members or themselves from assault would naturally be anti-gun control. It just makes sense to integrate what you know into these debates. Most people really don't pick a side out of thin air, debate it analytically and come up with an answer. They start from a certain emotional place and then find rationales to back up their experience. When you are saying that people need to pull back and look at the facts, you are never going to get anywhere, because you invalidating peoples strong emotions about the experiences guns have in their lives. It matters.

You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, convince enough gun owners that this is a good idea to get this to happen. Absolutely never.

Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat. There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market. Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools. You are just trying to make a better tool.

What happens when an armed teacher accidentally shoots a student or another teacher? I could go so far as to accept a trained armed guard in a school, but I don't want teachers to be required to carry. If we HAVE to have guns in schools, then at least make sure they are in the hands of properly trained people.

As far as my reasons being "purely emotional", I believe yours are emotional as well. You believe that trained teachers would be superior to no guns in schools at all, but there are no statistics to back that up.

Quote

Shooting and killing someone that is trying to kill Innocent people stops them that's a fact. Now there are many factors that determine if a person can accomplish that. Metal detectors, anti-bullying campaigns etc. may deter but will not stop someone determined to do harm to others. Unfortunately there are things that can only be solved by violence. Mass shootings not ending until the shooter(s) meeting resistance is what many of them have in common. Generally the sooner they are met with resistance the less people they are able to kill or injure.

It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all. And hardly any one dies. Sure you will find the occasional knife attack, but people are injured, not dead.

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Thinking that violence is necessary leads you to violence. Thinking that violence is unacceptable leads you away from it. We have seen societies where there is little to no gun violence. It can happen. It has happened. THAT is a fact. You have chosen violence over an alternative that you know exists. You need to own that.

I never said I wanted teachers required to carry, I think people that can legally carry everywhere else should be able to do so at schools too. A teacher that carries outside of school should be able to carry at school if they want to.

Other potential practical ideas that come to mind with guns - let's give another shot at solving it technologically. Yes, I know earlier attempts at a "smart gun" were a disaster. But if I can open my phone almost instantly with my fingerprint, surely we can figure out something for a gun, right? I mean, I know it doesn't solve every problem, but it might slow the sale of illegal guns. The paranoid right will probably worry about registering fingerprints in a federal database, so make it like Apple is doing and have the gun companies hold on to that data themselves. I'll have to do some research into what could possibly be done to make guns safer.

I thought a lot about the "emotion" angle last night, and it occurs to me that you can't really separate emotion from these types of debates entirely, and you probably don't want to. I mean, most people who have had a gun related death in their friend or family circle tend to gravitate toward gun control. Many of these people become activists. Those who have been able to save family members or themselves from assault would naturally be anti-gun control. It just makes sense to integrate what you know into these debates. Most people really don't pick a side out of thin air, debate it analytically and come up with an answer. They start from a certain emotional place and then find rationales to back up their experience. When you are saying that people need to pull back and look at the facts, you are never going to get anywhere, because you invalidating peoples strong emotions about the experiences guns have in their lives. It matters.

Your fingerprint scanner on your phone doesn't work all the time in all conditions instantly. It should never be on an item that may be used in a life or death situation. I'm not against companies trying to develop the technology. I however very much against it be required by law.

Out of curiosity, if a teacher carries in the school, do you think that the school should be required to tell their parents and students of this? (Let's keep the response to "in a public school" just for the sake of simplicity.)

Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat. There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market. Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools. You are just trying to make a better tool.

In theory. In practice, it's a complete non-starter. This is not an issue that will be dealt with rationally with people on both sides of the debate working together. I would literallyfiguratively bet my entire life savings on it. The NRA will fight tooth and nail against it. Gun owners will be absolutely against it. Even if the technology were "perfected" there is no way this will ever become a thing, probably in any of our lives.

Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat. There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market. Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools. You are just trying to make a better tool.

In theory. In practice, it's a complete non-starter. This is not an issue that will be dealt with rationally with people on both sides of the debate working together. I would literallyfiguratively bet my entire life savings on it. The NRA will fight tooth and nail against it. Gun owners will be absolutely against it. Even if the technology were "perfected" there is no way this will ever become a thing, probably in any of our lives.

EDITED to change one word because get away from my money, y'all.

If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it. If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.